Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

Anarchy, Libertarianism, and Socialism

These subjects have been coming up in the group lately, and I recently read a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky that talks about these topics. Here's an excerpt:

Michael S. Wilson: You are, among many other things, a self-described anarchist — an anarcho-syndicalist, specifically. Most people think of anarchists as disenfranchised punks throwing rocks at store windows, or masked men tossing ball-shaped bombs at fat industrialists. Is this an accurate view? What is anarchy to you?

Noam Chomsky: Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a particular variety of anarchism which was concerned primarily, though not solely, but primarily with control over work, over the work place, over production. It took for granted that working people ought to control their own work, its conditions, [that] they ought to control the enterprises in which they work, along with communities, so they should be associated with one another in free associations, and … democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society. And then, you know, ideas are worked out about how exactly that should manifest itself, but I think that is the core of anarcho-syndicalist thinking. I mean it’s not at all the general image that you described — people running around the streets, you know, breaking store windows — but [anarcho-syndicalism] is a conception of a very organized society, but organized from below by direct participation at every level, with as little control and domination as is feasible, maybe none.

Wilson: With the apparent ongoing demise of the capitalist state, many people are looking at other ways to be successful, to run their lives, and I’m wondering what you would say anarchy and syndicalism have to offer, things that others ideas — say, for example, state-run socialism — have failed to offer? Why should we choose anarchy, as opposed to, say, libertarianism?

Chomsky: Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Well, we don’t have to talk about that! That kind of —

Wilson: It seems to be a continuing contention today …

Chomsky: Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to be a slave. Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that. It seems like … transparent.

The thing you need an argument for, and should give an argument for, is, How can we best proceed in that direction? And there are lots of ways within the current society. One way, incidentally, is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled. I mean in the long run, anarchists would like to see the state eliminated. But it exists, alongside of private power, and the state is, at least to a certain extent, under public influence and control — could be much more so. And it provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power. Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example. Or insuring that people have decent health care, let’s say. Many other things like that. They’re not going to come about through private power. Quite the contrary. But they can come about through the use of the state system under limited democratic control … to carry forward reformist measures. I think those are fine things to do. they should be looking forward to something much more, much beyond, — namely actual, much larger-scale democratization. And that’s possible to not only think about, but to work on. So one of the leading anarchist thinkers, Bakunin in the 19th cent, pointed out that it’s quite possible to build the institutions of a future society within the present one. And he was thinking about far more autocratic societies than ours. And that’s being done. So for example, worker- and community- controlled enterprises are germs of a future society within the present one. And those not only can be developed, but are being developed. There’s some important work on this by Gar Alperovitz who’s involved in the enterprise systems around the Cleveland area which are worker and community controlled. There’s a lot of theoretical discussion of how it might work out, from various sources. Some of the most worked out ideas are in what’s called the “parecon” — participatory economics — literature and discussions. And there are others. These are at the planning and thinking level. And at the practical implementation level, there are steps that can be taken, while also pressing to overcome the worst … the major harms … caused by … concentration of private power through the use of state system, as long as the current system exists. So there’s no shortage of means to pursue.

As for state socialism, depends what one means by the term. If it’s tyranny of the Bolshevik variety (and its descendants), we need not tarry on it. If it’s a more expanded social democratic state, then the comments above apply. If something else, then what? Will it place decision-making in the hands of working people and communities, or in hands of some authority? If the latter, then — once again — freedom is better than subjugation, and the latter carries a very heavy burden of justification.

Do you agree with him that anarchy (as he describes it) would be the most just form of societal organization?

I think, under ideal conditions, almost any governmental system can work well. Even tyrrany is ok, if the tyrant is benevolent and competent.

The question is, what happens when things are not perfect? Is the system such that it tends to fix itself, or does it get worse over time, once broken?

Many people have designed utopian anarchist societies. And maybe, given sufficient technology, stable surroundings, and an initial group of well funded dedicated people to set the social patterns, it could work.

But, given those same advantages, most other systems would aso work much better than they do today.

"Unaccountable private tyranny". Yes, that is exactly what those who are turning our country into a corporatocracy are striving toward.

Anarchy is an ideal that I think simply has no basis in reality, human nature being what it is. I understand the ideal, can even understand why some may find it appealing but its assumes too much that people will individually do the right thing.

When he talks about placing decision making in the hands of the working people and communities, isn't that a socialist ideal?

Do you agree with him that anarchy (as he describes it) would be the most just form of societal organization?

I think, under ideal conditions, almost any governmental system can work well. Even tyrrany is ok, if the tyrant is benevolent and competent.

The question is, what happens when things are not perfect? Is the system such that it tends to fix itself, or does it get worse over time, once broken?

Many people have designed utopian anarchist societies. And maybe, given sufficient technology, stable surroundings, and an initial group of well funded dedicated people to set the social patterns, it could work.

But, given those same advantages, most other systems would aso work much better than they do today.

You raise some interesting points. Which systems do you think would be most able to self-repair, and which do you think are most prone to falling into a downward spiral in imperfect conditions?

It is a socialist ideal, as I understand it, the main difference being the way society is organized exclusively around the people, rather than having a central goverment to regulate and oversee things.

I am not sure that everyone must be "good" or moral for some form of anarchism to work; I think it would depend on how it's organized.

I am not entirely decided in my thoughts on these topics, but I can see how labor organizing, co-ops, and social democracy could all be steps along a path which would culminate in the ideal he describes. I am just not sure exactly how, or whether, it would ultimately work.

Quoting idunno1234:

"Unaccountable private tyranny". Yes, that is exactly what those who are turning our country into a corporatocracy are striving toward.

Anarchy is an ideal that I think simply has no basis in reality, human nature being what it is. I understand the ideal, can even understand why some may find it appealing but its assumes too much that people will individually do the right thing.

When he talks about placing decision making in the hands of the working people and communities, isn't that a socialist ideal?

See, this is what I don't get. Here is an opportunity to have a nice, meaty, intelligent.....even, dare I say it, potentially fruitful discussion and you throw out a shot without backing up exactly why you feel that way. Why do you have to view everything in a black and white, we're right, they're wrong, ideological constraint type way? Its complicated, never simple. No one has all the right answers.

Regarding the OP (sort of):

Societies that emphasize individualism I think can only be an ideal. Its a retreat from society and societal obligations and I can't imagine that being a leap forward. I personally believe that in order for humans to move past the misery we inflict upon one another, there has to be a recognition of our connectivity and commonality, not an emphasis on our individuality and continued differentiation. The things we tend to slaughter each other over are, in the whole scheme of things, stupid idiotic shit. The things we all have in common....the need for food, shelter, safety, love for our family and friends and wanting them to be safe, fed and happy.....that's what should be binding us together.

There are enough resources on this planet for every man, woman and child to be fed, have access to clean water and shelter. The reason why so many suffer is because there are those who allow it, even encourage it to be so while the rest of us ignore it, even excuse it. Misery isn't always about personal choices, its about others willingness to inflict or allow suffering of others. We have the ability to make an almost paradise on earth but humans continue to insist on imposing shit on each other and ignoring those who suffer as a result.

Its important to respect individual differences. I have had a lifelong repulsion of groupthink since I can remember, sometimes embarrassingly so. That is why I would never register for any political party. Respecting differences to me needs to include using empathy to gain insight into various perspectives. There is nothing to be gained by keeping our thoughts in a neat, tidy little bubble. That's not expanding the mind, its stiffling it, something that so many people willingly fight to do. I find that maddening.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

Oh, so someone wants to change the definitions of long established words to fit their own purpsoses. I must say I am shocked.....................

In practice, the best we've found so far is multi-party democracy with a wide franchise, among a well educated electorate with an active civil society (non-governmental organisations).

Known failure modes are extreme economic depression (leading to giving political leaders a lot of power to fix the problem, which they then use break the system), military coup, civil war (extreme fractionalism, often based on ethnic or religious grounds), and pandering to the masses through bread and circuses (a breakdown in education). Possibly one could add to that list "take over by an ogliarchy who pay for votes", but that's not yet been proven.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.